Son of Buddha wrote:so does the Dharmakaya of the Buddha have Skandha's?

It doesn't have skandhas, it is the skandhas.

1Myriad dharmas are only mind. Mind is unobtainable. What is there to seek?2If the Buddha-Nature is seen,there will be no seeing of a nature in any thing.3Neither cultivation nor seated meditation —this is the pure Chan of Tathagata.4With sudden enlightenment to Tathagata Chan,the six paramitas and myriad meansare complete within that essence.

Buddha nature is the innate capability of the mind to recognize its own nature. So it is a capability of mind, and not mind itself. When this capability is not exercised, it manifests as ignorance. When it is exercised, it manifests as wisdom.

jeeprs wrote:The question that occurs to me is, is Tathagatagarbha a valid object of cognition? (I hope that is not an improper question.)

No, and very specifically so. If it could be taken as an object of cognition it would be compounded, impermanent, and the source of dukha. Not even a buddha can take it as an object of cognition.

That being so, it is not even properly the subject of propositions. In other words, it is not something that can really be spoken of, which is why in the early tradition there was no such word or concept at all. It is not because it doesn't exist: it is because it is beyond existence. And what is beyond existence cannot properly be spoken of at all. 'That of which we cannot speak, of that we should remain silent'.

Sometimes spirituality is a liberation, and sometimes it's an alibi ~ David Brazier

Koji wrote:The tathagatagarbha can't be a skandha. No way José! Here is why.

According to the Mahavastu, “There is no safety in the skandhas, but torment and great fear. There is no freedom in them: they are worthless."

Quotes from the Nirvana sutra. "Also Emancipation is giving up the actions of ones childhood days.It is the same with Emancipation. It does away with the 5 skanghas. abandoning the 5 skandhas is true emancipation, true emancipation is the Tathagata." "he subdues the mara of illusion, the mara of the 5 skandhas" "he is no skandha, sphere or realm and yet he is the skandha sphere and realm" "The Buddha nature is strong and vigorous. It is hard to destroy. Therefore there is nothing that can kill it. If there were something that could indeed kill it, Buddha nature would die. But nothing can ever destroy such Buddha nature. Nothing of this nature can ever be cut" "The Buddha nature of beings rests withing the 5 skandhas." If the 5 skandhas are destroyed this is killing of those Skanghas" "If a person sees the expedient body of the Tathagata and says that it belongs to the 5 skandhas, the 18 realms and the 12 spheres, and that it arises from feeding, such is not to be depended upon. This means that even consciousness is not to be depended upon If a sutra says thus it cannot be depended upon "

Koji wrote:The tathagatagarbha can't be a skandha. No way José! Here is why.

According to the Mahavastu, “There is no safety in the skandhas, but torment and great fear. There is no freedom in them: they are worthless."

What that quote refers to is not to identify with or attach to the aggregates. If you say that there is buddha-nature beyond the skandhas and dhatus then it has no relevance and no connection to any sentient being.

As Nagarjuna writes, "If the aggregates were self, it would be possessed of arising and decaying. If it were other than the aggregates, it would not have the characteristics of the aggregates." (MMK 18.1)Substitute self with buddha-nature and you get the same problem.

1Myriad dharmas are only mind. Mind is unobtainable. What is there to seek?2If the Buddha-Nature is seen,there will be no seeing of a nature in any thing.3Neither cultivation nor seated meditation —this is the pure Chan of Tathagata.4With sudden enlightenment to Tathagata Chan,the six paramitas and myriad meansare complete within that essence.

Koji wrote:The tathagatagarbha can't be a skandha. No way José! Here is why.

According to the Mahavastu, “There is no safety in the skandhas, but torment and great fear. There is no freedom in them: they are worthless."

What that quote refers to is not to identify with or attach to the aggregates. If you say that there is buddha-nature beyond the skandhas and dhatus then it has no relevance and no connection to any sentient being.

As Nagarjuna writes, "If the aggregates were self, it would be possessed of arising and decaying. If it were other than the aggregates, it would not have the characteristics of the aggregates." (MMK 18.1)Substitute self with buddha-nature and you get the same problem.

Thats weird the Buddha said the exact oppositeSN 22.59 Anatta-lakkhana Sutta: The Discourse on the Not-self Characteristic (the 5 aggregates are all listed) "Form, O monks, is not-self; if form were self, then form would not lead to suffering , O monks, since form is not-self, therefore form leads to suffering

Son of Buddha wrote:Thats weird the Buddha said the exact oppositeSN 22.59 Anatta-lakkhana Sutta: The Discourse on the Not-self Characteristic (the 5 aggregates are all listed) "Form, O monks, is not-self; if form were self, then form would not lead to suffering , O monks, since form is not-self, therefore form leads to suffering

Nagarjuna argues that assuming a self identical to or different from the skandhas are both wrong. How does that contradict what the Buddha taught?

1Myriad dharmas are only mind. Mind is unobtainable. What is there to seek?2If the Buddha-Nature is seen,there will be no seeing of a nature in any thing.3Neither cultivation nor seated meditation —this is the pure Chan of Tathagata.4With sudden enlightenment to Tathagata Chan,the six paramitas and myriad meansare complete within that essence.

Son of Buddha wrote:Thats weird the Buddha said the exact oppositeSN 22.59 Anatta-lakkhana Sutta: The Discourse on the Not-self Characteristic (the 5 aggregates are all listed) "Form, O monks, is not-self; if form were self, then form would not lead to suffering , O monks, since form is not-self, therefore form leads to suffering

Nagarjuna argues that assuming a self identical to or different from the skandhas are both wrong. How does that contradict what the Buddha taught?

Is that what the quote I posted says?The contradiction is actually very obvious line up the quotes and you will see.One says if the 5 aggregates were self it would lead to decay and ceasing.The other says if the 5 aggregates were self they would not lead to suffering.You dont see those 2 quotes being in contradiction?

Son of Buddha wrote:The contradiction is actually very obvious line up the quotes and you will see.One says if the 5 aggregates were self it would lead to decay and ceasing.The other says if the 5 aggregates were self they would not lead to suffering.You dont see those 2 quotes being in contradiction?

If the skandhas were self they would not lead to suffering, therefore they are not self, this is what the Buddha says. Nagarjuna says that because the skandhas are impermanent they are not self. The three characteristics (trilaksana/tilakkhana) are impermanence, suffering, no-self. The SN quote mentions suffering, Nagarjuna mentions impermanence, and both prove that the skandhas are no-self. Where is the contradiction?

1Myriad dharmas are only mind. Mind is unobtainable. What is there to seek?2If the Buddha-Nature is seen,there will be no seeing of a nature in any thing.3Neither cultivation nor seated meditation —this is the pure Chan of Tathagata.4With sudden enlightenment to Tathagata Chan,the six paramitas and myriad meansare complete within that essence.

Son of Buddha wrote:The contradiction is actually very obvious line up the quotes and you will see.One says if the 5 aggregates were self it would lead to decay and ceasing.The other says if the 5 aggregates were self they would not lead to suffering.You dont see those 2 quotes being in contradiction?

If the skandhas were self they would not lead to suffering, therefore they are not self, this is what the Buddha says. Nagarjuna says that because the skandhas are impermanent they are not self. The three characteristics (trilaksana/tilakkhana) are impermanence, suffering, no-self. The SN quote mentions suffering, Nagarjuna mentions impermanence, and both prove that the skandhas are no-self. Where is the contradiction?

But your quote doesnt say that.As Nagarjuna writes, "If the aggregates were self, it would be possessed of arising and decaying. (MMK 18.1)

Shouldnt it read if the 5 aggregates were NOT SELF,it would be possessed of arising and decaying.?the material in Your statement up above doesnt match the quote you provided.

Son of Buddha wrote:Thats weird the Buddha said the exact oppositeSN 22.59 Anatta-lakkhana Sutta: The Discourse on the Not-self Characteristic (the 5 aggregates are all listed) "Form, O monks, is not-self; if form were self, then form would not lead to suffering , O monks, since form is not-self, therefore form leads to suffering

Nagarjuna argues that assuming a self identical to or different from the skandhas are both wrong. How does that contradict what the Buddha taught?

Is that what the quote I posted says?The contradiction is actually very obvious line up the quotes and you will see.One says if the 5 aggregates were self it would lead to decay and ceasing.The other says if the 5 aggregates were self they would not lead to suffering.You dont see those 2 quotes being in contradiction?

It's not a contradiction, just different ways of equating the skandhas and self. The assumption is that "self" (atma) is permanent and phenomena like skandhas is impermanent. So, if the two are identical then either the self would become like ordinary phenomena or phenomena would become like self.

Anyway, you will always run into logical problems, fallacies, and so forth as long as you are trying to understand reality with categories and distinct entities in your head. All of that is artificial. That is why trying to understand something like the Tathagata-garbha as a dharma (a distinct entity) doesn't make any sense when compared to the skandhas. Logical apples and oranges. And its all conceptual processing of non-conceptual reality - which leads to internal logic errors. That is basic theme of Nagarjuna's MMK & the Prajnaparamita.

"If the aggregates were self, it would be possessed of arising and decaying."

That is, if self (self is necessarily something permanent) were identical to the skandhas (that are impermanent), then the self would have to be impermanent, and that contradicts the very definition of self. This is what Nagarjuna says.

Here is Kalupahana's translation:

"If the self were to be identical with the aggregates, it will partake of uprising and ceasing. If it were to be different from the aggreagetes, it would have the characteristics of the non-aggregates."

1Myriad dharmas are only mind. Mind is unobtainable. What is there to seek?2If the Buddha-Nature is seen,there will be no seeing of a nature in any thing.3Neither cultivation nor seated meditation —this is the pure Chan of Tathagata.4With sudden enlightenment to Tathagata Chan,the six paramitas and myriad meansare complete within that essence.

Astus wrote:"If the aggregates were self, it would be possessed of arising and decaying."

That is, if self (self is necessarily something permanent) were identical to the skandhas (that are impermanent), then the self would have to be impermanent, and that contradicts the very definition of self. This is what Nagarjuna says.

Here is Kalupahana's translation:

"If the self were to be identical with the aggregates, it will partake of uprising and ceasing. If it were to be different from the aggreagetes, it would have the characteristics of the non-aggregates."

that quote is saying IF the aggregates WERE self,it would lead to arising and decayMy quote says.........IF the aggregates WERE self,it would NOT lead to suffering.

Thats a contradiction.They are literally saying the exact opposite of one anouther....literally the exact opposite.

Son of Buddha wrote:that quote is saying IF the aggregates WERE self,it would lead to arising and decayMy quote says.........IF the aggregates WERE self,it would NOT lead to suffering.

Nagarjuna talks about the self, the Buddha talks about the skandhas. Different subjects.

Nagarjuna says that IF self=skandhas THEN self=impermenent (& suffering)Buddha says that IF self=skandhas THEN skandhas=happiness (& permanent)

1Myriad dharmas are only mind. Mind is unobtainable. What is there to seek?2If the Buddha-Nature is seen,there will be no seeing of a nature in any thing.3Neither cultivation nor seated meditation —this is the pure Chan of Tathagata.4With sudden enlightenment to Tathagata Chan,the six paramitas and myriad meansare complete within that essence.

Astus wrote:"If the aggregates were self, it would be possessed of arising and decaying."

That is, if self (self is necessarily something permanent) were identical to the skandhas (that are impermanent), then the self would have to be impermanent, and that contradicts the very definition of self. This is what Nagarjuna says.

Here is Kalupahana's translation:

"If the self were to be identical with the aggregates, it will partake of uprising and ceasing. If it were to be different from the aggreagetes, it would have the characteristics of the non-aggregates."

As Nagarjuna writes, "If the aggregates were self, it would be possessed of arising and decaying. (MMK 18.1)

These translations are even the opposite of each otherKalu"s translation says if the self was the aggregates it would to arising and ceasingKalus translation is saying the aggregates lead to arising and ceasing

The other translation says if the aggregates were the self it would lead arising and ceasingThis translation is saying the self is what leads to arising and ceasing.

Son of Buddha wrote:So which one leads to arising and ceasing the aggregates or the self?

It is already known and agreed upon that the skandhas are impermanent (arising and ceasing). The self is necessarily permenent, not arising and not ceasing. If the self were the skandhas, the self would have to be impermanent. That is, being impermanent is a contradiction for the self, not for the skandhas. Therefore, the self cannot be the same as the skandhas.

1Myriad dharmas are only mind. Mind is unobtainable. What is there to seek?2If the Buddha-Nature is seen,there will be no seeing of a nature in any thing.3Neither cultivation nor seated meditation —this is the pure Chan of Tathagata.4With sudden enlightenment to Tathagata Chan,the six paramitas and myriad meansare complete within that essence.